Raiden

Karma: 236

Raiden Jul 11, 2015, 8:57 AM
0 points
in reply to: D_Malik’s comment on: Crazy Ideas Thread

Also, if these super-Turing machines are possible, and the real universe is finite, then we are living in a simulation with probability 1, because you could use them to simulate infinitely many observer-seconds.

This is probably true. I think a lot of people feel uncomfortable with the possibility of us living in a simulation, because we’d be in a “less real” universe or we’d be under the complete control of the simulators, or various other complaints. But if such super-Turing machines are possible, then the simulated nature of the universe wouldn’t really matter. Unless the simulators intervened to prevent it, we could “escape” by running an infinite simulation of ourselves. It would almost be like entering an ontologically separate reality.

Raiden Jul 8, 2015, 8:27 PM
9 points
on: Crazy Ideas Thread
I always thought that the “most civilizations just upload and live in a simulated utopia instead of colonizing the universe” response to the Fermi Paradox was obviously wrong, because it would only take ONE civilization breaking this trend to be visible, and regardless of what the aliens are doing, a galaxy of resources is always useful to have. But i was reading somewhere (I don’t remember where) about an interesting idea of a super-Turing computer that could calculate anything, regardless of time constraints and ignoring the halting problem. I think the proposal was to use closed time like curves or something.

This, of course, seemed very far-fetched, but the implications are fascinating. It would be possible to use such a device to simulate an eternity in a moment. We could upload and have an eternity of eudaimonia, without ever having to worry about running out of resources or the heat death of the universe or alien superintelligences. Even if the computer was to be destroyed an instant later, it wouldn’t matter to us. If such a thing was possible, then that would be an obvious solution to the Fermi Paradox.

Raiden May 9, 2015, 10:56 PM
0 points
on: Why capitalism?
I strongly suspect that the effectiveness of capitalism as a system of economic organization is proportional to how rational agents participating in it are. I expect that capitalism only optimizes against the general welfare when people in a capitalist society make decisions that go against their own long-term values. The more rational a capitalist society is, the more it begins to resemble an economist’s paradise.

Raiden Apr 18, 2015, 12:53 AM
3 points
in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: Rationality Reading Group: Introduction and A: Predictably Wrong
Thank you! That’s the first in-depth presentation of someone actually benefiting from MBTI that I’ve ever seen, and it’s really interesting. I’ll mull over it. I guess the main thing to keep in mind is that other people are different from me.

Raiden Apr 17, 2015, 2:01 AM
4 points
in reply to: Mark_Friedenbach’s comment on: Rationality Reading Group: Introduction and A: Predictably Wrong
I’ve noticed that a lot of my desire to be rational is social. I was raised as the local “smart kid” and continue to feel associated with that identity. I get all the stuff about rationality should be approached like “I have this thing I care about, and therefore become rational to protect it.” but I just don’t feel that way. I’m not sure how I feel about that.

Of the three reasons to be rational that are described, I’m most motivated by the moral reason. This is probably because of the aforementioned identity. I feel very offended at anything I perceive as “irrational” in others, kinda like it’s an attack on my tribe. This has negative effects on my social life and causes me to be very arrogant to others. Does anybody have any advice for that?

Raiden Apr 1, 2015, 5:03 AM
0 points
in reply to: Caue’s comment on: Status—is it what we think it is?
I’d have to be stronger than the group in order to get more food than the entire group, but depending on their ability to cooperate I may be able to steal plenty for myself, an amount that would seem tiny compared to the large amount needed for the whole group.

The example I chose was a somewhat bad one I think though because the villagers would have a defender’s advantage of protecting their food. You can substitute “food” for “abstract, uncontrolled resource” to clarify my point.

Raiden Apr 1, 2015, 12:18 AM
1 point
in reply to: Kaj_Sotala’s comment on: Status—is it what we think it is?

an armed group such as occupiers or raiders who kept forcibly taking resources from the native population would be high status among the population, which seems clearly untrue.

Maybe that’s still the same kind of status, but it is in regards to a different domain. Perhaps an effective understanding of status acknowledges that groups overlap and may be formed around different resources. In your example, there is group (raiders and natives) which forms around literal physical resources, perhaps food. In this group, status is determined by military might, so the raiders have a higher status-as-it-relates-to-food.

Within this group, there is another subgroup of just the villagers, which the raiders are either not a part of or are very low-status in. This group distributes social support or other nice things like that, as the resource to compete over. The group norms dictate that pro-social behavior is how you raise status. So you can be high-status in the group of natives, but low status in the group of (natives and raiders).

In our daily lives, we are all part of many different groups, which are all aligned along different resources. We constantly exchange status in some groups for status in others. For instance, suppose I’m a pretty tough guy, and I’m inserted into the previously discussed status system. I obviously want food, but I’m not stronger than the raiders. I am, however, stronger than most of the villagers, and could take some of the food that the raiders don’t scavenge for. If strength was my biggest comparative advantage, and food was all I wanted, then this would definitely be the way to go.

Suppose though that I don’t just want food, or I have an even larger comparative advantage in another area, such as basketweaving. I could join the group of the villagers and raise my status within the group. Other villagers would be willing to sacrifice their status in the (raiders and villagers) system in exchange for something they need, like my baskets. This would be me bartering my baskets for food. Here, we can see the primary resource of the (raiders and villagers) group thrown under the bus for other values.

If I raise my status in the group far enough by making good enough baskets, then in terms of the (raiders and villagers) system I will be getting a larger piece of a smaller pie, but it might still be larger than the amount I would get otherwise. Or maybe I’m not even too concerned about the (raiders and villagers) system, and view status within the village group as a terminal value. Or maybe I want to collect villager status to trade for something even more valuable.

tl;dr: There are a lot of different groups optimizing for different things. We can be part of many of these groups at once and trade status between them to further our own goals.

Raiden Feb 21, 2015, 7:31 PM
0 points
on: Stupid Questions February 2015
When making Anki cards, is it more effective to ask the meaning of a term, or to ask what term describes a concept?

Raiden Feb 4, 2015, 3:15 AM
4 points
on: Stupid Questions February 2015
Would a boxed AI be able to affect the world in any important way using the computer hardware itself? Like, make electrons move in funky patterns or affect air flow with cooling fans? If so, would it be able to do anything significant?

Raiden Nov 28, 2014, 4:44 AM
10 points
in reply to: plex’s comment on: You have a set amount of “weirdness points”. Spend them wisely.
Regarding point 2, while it would be epistemologically risky and borderline dark arts, I think the idea is more about what to emphasize and openly signal, not what to actually believe.

Raiden Apr 11, 2014, 6:37 PM
3 points
in reply to: Raiden’s comment on: Open Thread April 8 - April 14 2014
Thank you to those who commented here. It helped!

Raiden Apr 11, 2014, 6:36 PM
0 points
in reply to: Shmi’s comment on: Open Thread April 8 - April 14 2014
Hmm it seems obvious in retrospect, but it didn’t occur to me that biochemistry would relate to nanotech. I suppose I compartmentalized “biological” from “super-cool high-tech stuff.” Thank you very much for that point!

Raiden Apr 10, 2014, 4:03 PM
5 points
on: Open Thread April 8 - April 14 2014
I’m at that point in life where I have to make a lot of choices about my future life. I’m considering doing a double major in biochemistry and computer science. I find both of these topics to be fascinating, but I’m not sure if that’s the most effective way to help the world. I am comfortable in my skills as an autodidact, and I find myself to be interested in comp sci, biochemistry, physics, and mathematics. I believe that regardless which I actually major in, I could learn any of the others quite well. I have a nagging voice in my head saying that I shouldn’t bother learning biochemistry, because it won’t be useful in the long term because everything will be based on nanotech and we will all be uploads. Is that a valid point? Or should I just focus on the world as it is now? And should I study something else or does biochem have potential to help the world? I find myself to be very confused about this subject and humbly request any advice.

Raiden Feb 9, 2014, 4:34 AM
0 points
in reply to: Scott Garrabrant’s comment on: Preferences without Existence
I guess what I’m saying is that since simpler ones are run more, they are more important. That would be true if every simulation was individually important, but I think one thing about this is that the mathematical entity itself is important, regardless of the number of times it’s instituted. But it still intuitively feels as though there would be more “weight” to the ones run more often. Things that happen in such universes would have more “influence” over reality as a whole.

Raiden Feb 9, 2014, 4:28 AM
1 point
in reply to: Scott Garrabrant’s comment on: Preferences without Existence
What I mean though, is that the more complicated universes can’t be less significant, because they are contained within this simple universe. All universes would have to be at least as morally significant as this universe, would they not?

Raiden Feb 9, 2014, 3:33 AM
0 points
in reply to: Raiden’s comment on: Preferences without Existence
Another thought: Wouldn’t one of the simplest universes be a universal turing machine that runs through every possible tape? All other universes would be contained within this universes, making them all “simple.”

Raiden Feb 9, 2014, 3:24 AM
0 points
on: Preferences without Existence
Instead of saying that you care about simpler universes more, couldn’t a similar preference arise out of pure utilitarianism? Simpler universes would be more important because things that happen within them will be more likely to also happen within more complicated universes that end up creating a similar series of states. For every universe, isn’t there an infinite number of more complicated universes that end up with the simpler universe existing within part of it?

Raiden Dec 11, 2013, 2:16 PM
1 point
on: Personal examples of semantic stopsigns
Ones I’ve noticed are “lazy” or “stupid” or other words that are used to describe people. Sure, it can be good to have such models so that one can predict the behavior of a person, like “This person isn’t likely to do his work.” or “She might have trouble understanding that.” The thing is, these are often treated as fundamental properties of an ontologically fundamental thing, which the human mind is not.

Why is this person lazy? Do they fall victim to hyperbolic discounting? Is there an ugh field related to their work? Do they not know what to do? Maybe they simply don’t have good reason to work? Why is this person “stupid?” Do they lack the prerequisite knowledge to understand what you’re saying? Are they interested in learning it? Do they have any experience with it?

Raiden Sep 20, 2013, 2:12 PM
3 points
in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: Help us Optimize the Contents of the Sequences eBook
I really would like a chronological order.

Raiden Sep 20, 2013, 2:11 PM
1 point
in reply to: Shmi’s comment on: Help us Optimize the Contents of the Sequences eBook
I really like the cute little story as you say, but agree that it isn’t effective where it is. Maybe include it in the end as a sort of appendix?